http://www.skyhighrecruit.info

Skyhigh Recruit UK are seeking only honest, self-motivated people with
a desire to work in the home typing and data entry field, from the
comfort of their own homes.

The preferred applicants should be at least 18 years old with Internet
access. No experience is needed. However the following skills are
desirable:

1. Basic computer and typing skills
2. Ability to spell and print neatly
3. Ability to follow directions

You will need..

1. A computer with Internet access
2. A valid email address
3. Good typing skills
4. Basic Internet knowledge

Whats involved?

You will be processing orders from your computer. How much you earn is
up to you.

The average earnings are £250 - £750 per week, depending on if you
are working part or full time.

Complete training provided, apply now!

admin@skyhighrecruit.info
http://www.skyhighrecruit.info

wrote in message 
news:c28852e0-a6e9-48b3-9cac-85efe974fa56@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
http://www.skyhighrecruit.info

Skyhigh Recruit UK are seeking only honest, self-motivated people with
a desire to work in the home typing and data entry field, from the
comfort of their own homes.

                           ***********************

Is there a tie breaker, or is it a free draw?

Cheers

-Ar^ch

Long overdue. Car adverts are far too fanciful and deliberately
misleading and dominate most of the mainstream media. It also never
ceases to amaze me that car adverts are not compelled to carry a
health warning like tobacco products. Arguably, the emissions from a
car exhaust are much worse than that from a single cigarette.

"The European Union is preparing to introduce tough new rules on car
advertising, forcing manufacturers to include conspicuous and easily
understood information about petrol consumption and emissions.

The new line follows the EU's decision to exert ever-greater control
on the way that tobacco, alcohol and food products can be advertised,
counterbalancing the claims and sales lines of advertisers with
warnings about the health implications of their products.

Details of the proposal to compel car manufacturers to own up to the
carbon footprint of their vehicles will be unveiled by the end of the
month, after which the politicians and car industry representatives
will discuss them for the first time. As well as spelling out the
environmental implications of the cars, the draft regulations are said
by Der Spiegel magazine to require manufacturers to put a brake on the
prose and the images used to imprint the desirability of their latest
models. Any reference to sportiness will apparently be frowned on..."

More:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/europe/eu-may-force-car-makers-to-reveal-emissions-in-adverts-829928.html

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:a256c7c4-4aa7-4660-bc46-0988269cc4e6@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> Long overdue. Car adverts are far too fanciful and deliberately
> misleading and dominate most of the mainstream media.

Dominate? Really? You mean they have control ovewr all other ads?
As for misleading, then car adverts are not alone. What about all the ads 
for heath products which throw in copious amounts of pseudo-science and 
scientific sounding words, all of which is utter bollocks? When are you 
going to get on your high horse about them?

> Arguably, the emissions from a
> car exhaust are much worse than that from a single cigarette.

And I think you'll find the majority will argue with that. Saying "arguably" 
doesn't give you the excuse to claim it's a fact.
Although breathing in all the emissions from all the cars in the world 
probably would be worse than a single cigarette, but that's as stupid a 
comparison as comparing the price of petrol with that of bottled water. Oh, 
hang on...

> Details of the proposal to compel car manufacturers to own up to the
> carbon footprint of their vehicles

And I care how much? Since carbon footprints are just the latest 
socio-political fad, and frankly meaningless and pointless, I don't care.

> Any reference to sportiness will apparently be frowned on..."

Tough shit. Since there is no scientific or standardised measurement of 
"sportiness", they can say what they like. A bit like saying this product or 
that course will "boost your mind" - it's not measurable, so meaningless 
nonsense.

In conclusion, another piece of pointless wank-material for Dung

Doug wrote:
> Long overdue. Car adverts are far too fanciful and deliberately
> misleading and dominate most of the mainstream media. It also never
> ceases to amaze me that car adverts are not compelled to carry a
> health warning like tobacco products. Arguably, the emissions from a
> car exhaust are much worse than that from a single cigarette.
>
As suprising as you may think it, I don't disagree with your comments about 
the bias of car ads. I'd like to see some evidence regarding your comparison 
of vehicle emmisions and cigarette smoke though.

"Doug"  wrote

> Long overdue.


A bit like your report then?


-- 
Regards, Vince.

Harry Monk's Long Distance Diary-

http://trucknetuk.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=31071

Doug wrote:
> Long overdue. Car adverts are far too fanciful and deliberately
> misleading and dominate most of the mainstream media. It also never
> ceases to amaze me that car adverts are not compelled to carry a
> health warning like tobacco products. Arguably, the emissions from a
> car exhaust are much worse than that from a single cigarette.

Arguably, so no proof then?

> 
> "The European Union is preparing to introduce tough new rules on car
> advertising, forcing manufacturers to include conspicuous and easily
> understood information about petrol consumption and emissions.

Not a bad idea if done fairly
> 
> The new line follows the EU's decision to exert ever-greater control
> on the way that tobacco, alcohol and food products can be advertised,
> counterbalancing the claims and sales lines of advertisers with
> warnings about the health implications of their products.

The problem is thats its a EU decision, so it will be cocked up, 
changed, ignored etc
> 
> Details of the proposal to compel car manufacturers to own up to the
> carbon footprint of their vehicles will be unveiled by the end of the
> month, after which the politicians and car industry representatives
> will discuss them for the first time. As well as spelling out the
> environmental implications of the cars, the draft regulations are said
> by Der Spiegel magazine to require manufacturers to put a brake on the
> prose and the images used to imprint the desirability of their latest
> models. Any reference to sportiness will apparently be frowned on..."

See above
> 
> More:
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/europe/eu-may-force-car-makers-to-reveal-emissions-in-adverts-829928.html
> 
> --
> World Carfree Network
> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
> 


-- 
Tony the Dragon

On 17 May, 08:42, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > Long overdue. Car adverts are far too fanciful and deliberately
> > misleading and dominate most of the mainstream media. It also never
> > ceases to amaze me that car adverts are not compelled to carry a
> > health warning like tobacco products. Arguably, the emissions from a
> > car exhaust are much worse than that from a single cigarette.
>
> As suprising as you may think it, I don't disagree with your comments about
> the bias of car ads. I'd like to see some evidence regarding your comparison
> of vehicle emmisions and cigarette smoke though.

The sheer volume of combustion products is very much greater from a
car exhaust compared to a cigarette and we know that exhausts deliver
carcinogens such as benzene.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
It takes about 10 acres to feed a car on ethanol for a year.
The world supply of grainland is about three-tenths of an acre per
person.

In article <c6802f1d-6a85-453a-9810-
210b7022890f@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...

> The sheer volume of combustion products is very much greater from a
> car exhaust compared to a cigarette and we know that exhausts deliver
> carcinogens such as benzene.
> 
What about the powerstation that generates your electricity, Doug? Are 
you going to stop using electricity? No, thought not. 

-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:c6802f1d-6a85-453a-9810-210b7022890f@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On 17 May, 08:42, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>> > Long overdue. Car adverts are far too fanciful and deliberately
>> > misleading and dominate most of the mainstream media. It also never
>> > ceases to amaze me that car adverts are not compelled to carry a
>> > health warning like tobacco products. Arguably, the emissions from a
>> > car exhaust are much worse than that from a single cigarette.
>>
>> As suprising as you may think it, I don't disagree with your comments 
>> about
>> the bias of car ads. I'd like to see some evidence regarding your 
>> comparison
>> of vehicle emmisions and cigarette smoke though.
>
> The sheer volume of combustion products is very much greater from a
> car exhaust compared to a cigarette and we know that exhausts deliver
> carcinogens such as benzene.

What's volume got to do with it? The vast majority is water vapour - 
harmless - and CO2, which isn't of itself poisinous or harmful if breathed 
in (as long as there's still enough oxygen in what you breathe). If you have 
any hope at all of maintaining your argument, you'll need to provide 
statistics on the concentration of these harmful substances which end up in 
what you breathe in from car exhaust compared with the concentration from 
directly inhaling the smoke of a cigarette. Can't provide the numbers? Well, 
shut up, then.

Doug wrote:
> On 17 May, 08:42, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> Long overdue. Car adverts are far too fanciful and deliberately
>>> misleading and dominate most of the mainstream media. It also never
>>> ceases to amaze me that car adverts are not compelled to carry a
>>> health warning like tobacco products. Arguably, the emissions from a
>>> car exhaust are much worse than that from a single cigarette.
>>
>> As suprising as you may think it, I don't disagree with your
>> comments about the bias of car ads. I'd like to see some evidence
>> regarding your comparison of vehicle emmisions and cigarette smoke
>> though.
>
> The sheer volume of combustion products is very much greater from a
> car exhaust compared to a cigarette

Greater from what volume of car exhaust Doug?

> and we know that exhausts deliver
> carcinogens such as benzene.

And the machines from which those carcinogens originate deliver your chosen 
lifestyle Doug. Are you ready to change that?

On 17 May, 14:10, "Graculus" 
wrote:
> "Doug"  wrote in message
>
> news:c6802f1d-6a85-453a-9810-210b7022890f@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 17 May, 08:42, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >> > Long overdue. Car adverts are far too fanciful and deliberately
> >> > misleading and dominate most of the mainstream media. It also never
> >> > ceases to amaze me that car adverts are not compelled to carry a
> >> > health warning like tobacco products. Arguably, the emissions from a
> >> > car exhaust are much worse than that from a single cigarette.
>
> >> As suprising as you may think it, I don't disagree with your comments
> >> about
> >> the bias of car ads. I'd like to see some evidence regarding your
> >> comparison
> >> of vehicle emmisions and cigarette smoke though.
>
> > The sheer volume of combustion products is very much greater from a
> > car exhaust compared to a cigarette and we know that exhausts deliver
> > carcinogens such as benzene.
>
> What's volume got to do with it? The vast majority is water vapour -
> harmless - and CO2, which isn't of itself poisinous or harmful if breathed
> in (as long as there's still enough oxygen in what you breathe). If you have
> any hope at all of maintaining your argument, you'll need to provide
> statistics on the concentration of these harmful substances which end up in
> what you breathe in from car exhaust compared with the concentration from
> directly inhaling the smoke of a cigarette. Can't provide the numbers? Well,
> shut up, then.

The swept volume of a car engine is not only greater than that of
human lungs but very much more rapid. To try to argue otherwise is
ridiculous.

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Doug wrote:
> On 17 May, 14:10, "Graculus" 
> wrote:
>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:c6802f1d-6a85-453a-9810-210b7022890f@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 17 May, 08:42, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> Long overdue. Car adverts are far too fanciful and deliberately
>>>>> misleading and dominate most of the mainstream media. It also
>>>>> never ceases to amaze me that car adverts are not compelled to
>>>>> carry a health warning like tobacco products. Arguably, the
>>>>> emissions from a car exhaust are much worse than that from a
>>>>> single cigarette.
>>
>>>> As suprising as you may think it, I don't disagree with your
>>>> comments about
>>>> the bias of car ads. I'd like to see some evidence regarding your
>>>> comparison
>>>> of vehicle emmisions and cigarette smoke though.
>>
>>> The sheer volume of combustion products is very much greater from a
>>> car exhaust compared to a cigarette and we know that exhausts
>>> deliver carcinogens such as benzene.
>>
>> What's volume got to do with it? The vast majority is water vapour -
>> harmless - and CO2, which isn't of itself poisinous or harmful if
>> breathed in (as long as there's still enough oxygen in what you
>> breathe). If you have any hope at all of maintaining your argument,
>> you'll need to provide statistics on the concentration of these
>> harmful substances which end up in what you breathe in from car
>> exhaust compared with the concentration from directly inhaling the
>> smoke of a cigarette. Can't provide the numbers? Well, shut up, then.
>
> The swept volume of a car engine is not only greater than that of
> human lungs but very much more rapid. To try to argue otherwise is
> ridiculous.

He hasn't tried to argue otherwise. You, as usual, are moving the goalposts.

Doug wrote:
> On 17 May, 14:10, "Graculus" 
> wrote:
>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:c6802f1d-6a85-453a-9810-210b7022890f@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 17 May, 08:42, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> Long overdue. Car adverts are far too fanciful and deliberately
>>>>> misleading and dominate most of the mainstream media. It also never
>>>>> ceases to amaze me that car adverts are not compelled to carry a
>>>>> health warning like tobacco products. Arguably, the emissions from a
>>>>> car exhaust are much worse than that from a single cigarette.
>>>> As suprising as you may think it, I don't disagree with your comments
>>>> about
>>>> the bias of car ads. I'd like to see some evidence regarding your
>>>> comparison
>>>> of vehicle emmisions and cigarette smoke though.
>>> The sheer volume of combustion products is very much greater from a
>>> car exhaust compared to a cigarette and we know that exhausts deliver
>>> carcinogens such as benzene.
>> What's volume got to do with it? The vast majority is water vapour -
>> harmless - and CO2, which isn't of itself poisinous or harmful if breathed
>> in (as long as there's still enough oxygen in what you breathe). If you have
>> any hope at all of maintaining your argument, you'll need to provide
>> statistics on the concentration of these harmful substances which end up in
>> what you breathe in from car exhaust compared with the concentration from
>> directly inhaling the smoke of a cigarette. Can't provide the numbers? Well,
>> shut up, then.
> 
> The swept volume of a car engine is not only greater than that of
> human lungs but very much more rapid. To try to argue otherwise is
> ridiculous.
> 
> --
> World Carfree Network
> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Nobody has said otherwise, your point is?

-- 
Tony the Dragon

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:5868ceee-7c57-4ed8-9e85-b5b2d701e760@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On 17 May, 14:10, "Graculus" 
> wrote:
>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:c6802f1d-6a85-453a-9810-210b7022890f@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 17 May, 08:42, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>> >> Doug wrote:
>> >> > Long overdue. Car adverts are far too fanciful and deliberately
>> >> > misleading and dominate most of the mainstream media. It also never
>> >> > ceases to amaze me that car adverts are not compelled to carry a
>> >> > health warning like tobacco products. Arguably, the emissions from a
>> >> > car exhaust are much worse than that from a single cigarette.
>>
>> >> As suprising as you may think it, I don't disagree with your comments
>> >> about
>> >> the bias of car ads. I'd like to see some evidence regarding your
>> >> comparison
>> >> of vehicle emmisions and cigarette smoke though.
>>
>> > The sheer volume of combustion products is very much greater from a
>> > car exhaust compared to a cigarette and we know that exhausts deliver
>> > carcinogens such as benzene.
>>
>> What's volume got to do with it? The vast majority is water vapour -
>> harmless - and CO2, which isn't of itself poisinous or harmful if 
>> breathed
>> in (as long as there's still enough oxygen in what you breathe). If you 
>> have
>> any hope at all of maintaining your argument, you'll need to provide
>> statistics on the concentration of these harmful substances which end up 
>> in
>> what you breathe in from car exhaust compared with the concentration from
>> directly inhaling the smoke of a cigarette. Can't provide the numbers? 
>> Well,
>> shut up, then.
>
> The swept volume of a car engine is not only greater than that of
> human lungs but very much more rapid. To try to argue otherwise is
> ridiculous.

Huh? So what? I wouldn't try to argue with that last point, but it's 
entirely irrelevant to the point you tried to make.

In article <5868ceee-7c57-4ed8-9e85-b5b2d701e760
@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...

> The swept volume of a car engine is not only greater than that of
> human lungs but very much more rapid. To try to argue otherwise is
> ridiculous.
> 
So what? 


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams